◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

As we all know, Science demonstrates that IQ gaps don’t exist; but if they did, they would be the fault of the book The Bell Curve for noticing them and thus conjuring them into existence via Stereotype Threat. For example, Charles Murray’s malignant influence is so all-pervasive it reaches all the way to Copenhagen where he singlehandedly caused Denmark’s draftees of non-Western background to score about a standard deviation lower than Denmark’s conscripts of Western ancestry.

Here we reanalyze some Danish data previously analyzed by myself earlier (Kirkegaard, 2013). The data concern some 22k persons who took the military draft test in 2003-2004. The persons are grouped into 2 groups: Western and non-Western.

I have a relative with a low IQ not caused by Down Syndrome. She can mimic normalcy well. If you met her on a bus for a short ride, you might even have a pleasant conversation about the weather, or some music she is listening to. But it is all mimicry and learning standard social exchanges.

She has an animal shrewdness, much like a dog. She reads faces well and is sensitive to changes in eye contact and body posture, again, much like a dog. She often senses that she has done something wrong and modifies her social affect.

I have been around her when she has met normal strangers and then talked about her with them (very carefully). Many are not even aware that she has a major intellectual deficit. Many just think she is perhaps a little "off" or "quirky".

I can spot others like her now. Particularly on cop shows. They are the ones who make moronic mistakes and are caught within minutes or hours of their crimes. The ones who knock someone over the head, take their money and cell phone, then walk right around the corner to their favorite MacDonalds to buy some fast food and call their friends.

Maybe Murray would have less reviled IF he had written more like Ann Coulter or some black guy.

What people find grating is the intelligent judicious tone + controversial findings.

Coulter said some wild stuff, but respectable people see her as ‘nut’, so they can sort of tolerate her and her ilk. Her views are not taken SERIOUSLY by intellectuals, so it doesn’t matter. Also, they knew she is a molotov cocktail thrower looking for trouble.

In contrast, Murray was taken seriously as thinker, even by Libs. He was published in New Republic earlier. He was seen as balanced and sensible ‘conservative’. He was part of the inner circle of respectable conservatives and even considered a token insider among moderate liberals.

Elites think that judiciousness and thoughtfulness MUST arrive at their conclusion of faux-dogma-on-equality. Of course, they don’t really believe in it themselves, but they strongly believe in the importance of make-believing in it. It’s like the Church. Maybe not everyone in the Church really believes in God, and they, wink-wink, know it. Maybe God doesn’t really exist, wink wink. But they all have to say publicly that God exists. Otherwise, the Church has lost its spiritual justification.
Equality became the official religion of postwar intellectualism in both capitalist west and communist east. You don’t have to believe in it privately. In small circles, you can even discuss race differences. But publicly, NO. Publicly, Equality is the god that must be upheld.

If Murray hadn’t written the book but got together with a small circle of academics and discussed his findings, they might have listened and even agreed on some points. But they can’t abide it once it’s made public. Publicly, Equality is the official faith.

It’s like, the noblemen may find the current king to be an idiot. But in a monarchy, they must bow down to the king and respect him in the public realm. They might make some snide comments behind closed doors about the king, but it must never be made public. And if someone is exposed of having uttered disrespectful remark, even those who’d been there egging him on must denounce and deny him like Peter denied Jesus.

Among the elites, judiciousness and thoughtfulness are supposed to converge on the same conclusion: Equality. Because Murray was allowed and because he rubbed shoulders with respectable people, his book led to massive panic.
Respectable people don’t hang with Coulter. But they worked with Murray and even supported him and defended him. So, when the book came out, it didn’t just mean Murray was wrong. It meant that THEY were tainted by association with him. So, they had to DENY him especially hard like Peter did. “I knew nothing about that side of Murray. He seemed like a nice guy, thoughtful person. I didn’t know he’s a closet Nazi. I swear I didn’t. I swear it. Really!! Get him, not me. I renounce him, denounce him, and will never invite him to anything ever again.”

Now, imagine if Murray had written the book in Ebonics and relished the role of Bad Boy. Things might have been different. Bell Curvaceous might have been kinda cool.

Ebonicize Murray’s “Trump’s America”, and it has some populist cachet. Murray should have written for the unwashed dummies, not the uptight smarties.

As recently as 1960, da creed wuz our national consensus. Running dat year fo’ da Democratic nomination, candidates like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson an’ Hubert Humphrey genuinely embraced da creed, differing from Republicans only in how its elements should be realized.

this day, da creed has lost its authority an’ its substance. What happened? Many o’ da dynamics o’ da reversal can be found in developments across da whole o’ American society: in da emergence o’ uh new upper class an’ uh new lower class, an’ in da plight o’ da working class caught in between.

Ann Coulter may be wild, but unlike Murray she has carefully stayed away from the subject of racial differences in IQ. She blames black dysfunction on the lack of fathers in the home, which is certainly an important factor, but perhaps more of a symptom than a cause.

Ebonicize Murray’s “Trump’s America”, and it has some populist cachet. Murray should have written for the unwashed dummies, not the uptight smarties.

Hahaha. It sounds every black activist college kid I've ever heard -- it has all the 50 cent words that these kids think makes them sound smart, but it also has the ghetto talk that they can't shake and that betrays their roots.

The school board in Palo Alto voted recently to rename Jordan Middle School (named after David Starr Jordan, Stanford University’s first president, who was a eugenicist and wrote that “to say that one race is superior to another is merely to confirm the common observation of every intelligent citizen.”) and Terman Middle School (“Terman’s fate is slightly more complicated given its naming history, trustees said Tuesday. Terman was first named after Lewis Terman, a prominent Stanford University psychologist, when the school opened in 1958. When the school later closed and then reopened in 2001, it was named to honor both Lewis and his son, Frederick, an accomplished Stanford electrical engineer. There is no clear evidence, committee members said Tuesday, that Frederick played an active role in or supported the eugenics movement, as Lewis did.”

There is a 60 page pdf of the committee’s study of the issue, they all agreed that Lewis Terman was a really bad guy because he believed in IQ testing. They were sort of conflicted about Lewis’s electrical engineer son Frederick who is often considered to be the co-founder of the Silicon Valley (with the other co-founder being the infamous 1960s IQ-race realist William Shockley). Frederick got some positive credit because he recruited several brilliant Jews into the Stanford faculty, but he did not sufficiently disavow the evil views of his IQ test-promoting father.

The committee concluded that: “Frederick Terman was not a leader of the American Eugenics Movement His biographer asserts that Lewis had “a particularly strong influence on his only son, not simply as a father but as an intellectual immersed in the study and encouragement of gifted children, and as a career academic.” The record is unclear on whether that influence extended to eugenics, with various commentators claiming it did, and others largely silent on the issue . On the one hand, he hired several Jewish professors (Carl Djerassi, Joshua Lederberg, Arthur Kornberg and Henry Kaplan); on the other, he also recruited his friend and staunch eugenicist William Shockley to Stanford. Frederick does not appear to have disavowed his father’s eugenics doctrines and activities, neither does he appear to have publically advanced them.”

Truth is out of style. Hence, the renaming. Because if you speak it, you make it true for you. And eugenics is false. Even if the universe raises its middle finger to you when you claim it is false. Because the universe is racist. And so is the multiverse. And so is the infinityverse. And so is the infinityverse raised to the infinity power.

Sorry to be a kind of Spaßverderber, but I don’t find this kind ridicule to be amusing, appropriate, or helpful — what’s going on is nothing less than a vicious crime against future generations of (white) Europeans — they will have to deal with the horrible legacy of this: the societal pathology of a large and problematic muslim and black underclass — not to mention a disturbed sex ratio.

Unfortunately the SW here did not handle the twitter link in my above comment -- it contained a link to this story:

Endspurt im Asylbewerberheim -- a new home for asylum-seekers and refugees is ready in Döbeln, which is just west of Dresden -- 59 men and one child will move in -- there is a foto of nice German women making sure the place is clean.

I have a relative with a low IQ not caused by Down Syndrome. She can mimic normalcy well. If you met her on a bus for a short ride, you might even have a pleasant conversation about the weather, or some music she is listening to. But it is all mimicry and learning standard social exchanges.

She has an animal shrewdness, much like a dog. She reads faces well and is sensitive to changes in eye contact and body posture, again, much like a dog. She often senses that she has done something wrong and modifies her social affect.

I have been around her when she has met normal strangers and then talked about her with them (very carefully). Many are not even aware that she has a major intellectual deficit. Many just think she is perhaps a little “off” or “quirky”.

I can spot others like her now. Particularly on cop shows. They are the ones who make moronic mistakes and are caught within minutes or hours of their crimes. The ones who knock someone over the head, take their money and cell phone, then walk right around the corner to their favorite MacDonalds to buy some fast food and call their friends.

That's how the LAPD caught the home invader who slashed my wife's friend's throat back around 2007: he took her phone, and called his gang buddies to boast. The cops came down on them like a ton of bricks and they rolled over and said he always eats breakfast at his local Jack in the Box. So he was in cuffs the next morning.

I think I have honed my ability to spot people like this too. My job involves dealing with a lot of people on the left side of the bell curve. I later have access to psychological testing for many of them. I challenge myself to try to guess, and usually am pretty close. Teachers can do it too, but more intuitively.

There is something to be said for The Bell Curve's approach. When I need to advocate for them, I can explain the reality of their life situation and their limitations, and almost invariably garner sympathy and understanding for them. It is like my own mother insisting that my brother's B and C grades were okay, when my A- grades were not.

If you haven't read it already, you should check out a very interesting essay by Lawrence Auster, "MY VIEWS ON RACE AND INTELLIGENCE. "

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001132.html

Your post about your relative reminded me of this section of Auster's essay:

I realized that the reason whites do not automatically become aware of the large differences in average intellectual ability between whites and blacks is that whites often deal with blacks on a superficial level where only the ordinary levels of intelligence are brought into play.

In the fall of 1993 I had a kind of epiphany in which all these thoughts crystallized into a new paradigm concerning racial differences. It happened like this. I recalled an uncle of mine, one of my father’s brothers, who died about 10 years ago. He was a tall, handsome man, a natty dresser, a golfer, socially popular, a tough guy with an authoritative air, a bit irascible at times but not unkind. It never occurred to me in my youth there was anything wrong with him. It wasn’t until I grew older that I realized his entire conversation was limited to saying things like “Not too bad,” or “How about that,” or “You don’t say.” That’s an exaggeration, but not by much. My uncle, a year older than my father, worked with him in their business, in which they were partners, but I gradually realized my uncle did little except answer the phone and take in receipts. It was my father who actually ran the business and who had basically supported my uncle through his entire life, all the while keeping up the amiable front that my uncle was a partner in fact as well as in name. My mother told me that before she married my father, he told her that he would always have to take care of his brother. In fact, my uncle was of very limited intelligence, perhaps even borderline retarded, but it wasn’t something you automatically noticed because of the way he carried himself, his almost kingly manner and leonine appearance.

As I thought about my uncle in this light, I began to see through the “optical illusion” of racial equality. I realized how in ordinary interactions and behavior blacks seem on the whole like ourselves, indeed, often more vital than ourselves, with warm and vivid personalities, so we assume that any intellectual differences must be insignificant. It is only when we go beyond superficial contact and get to know them better, or when we observe them in a position requiring intelligence, that we see that, much more often than whites or Asians, they are unable to deal with more rigorous tasks. In undemanding, routine affairs they are, more or less, intellectually equal to whites. In more demanding settings they are not.

It was this insight that, by revealing and removing the “optical illusion,” brought all my ideas into a new pattern and gave me the conviction that there is a substantial, real difference in intelligence between blacks and whites, and that the difference is not just quantitative, but qualitative.

The school board in Palo Alto voted recently to rename Jordan Middle School (named after David Starr Jordan, Stanford University’s first president, who was a eugenicist and wrote that "to say that one race is superior to another is merely to confirm the common observation of every intelligent citizen.") and Terman Middle School ("Terman's fate is slightly more complicated given its naming history, trustees said Tuesday. Terman was first named after Lewis Terman, a prominent Stanford University psychologist, when the school opened in 1958. When the school later closed and then reopened in 2001, it was named to honor both Lewis and his son, Frederick, an accomplished Stanford electrical engineer. There is no clear evidence, committee members said Tuesday, that Frederick played an active role in or supported the eugenics movement, as Lewis did."

There is a 60 page pdf of the committee's study of the issue, they all agreed that Lewis Terman was a really bad guy because he believed in IQ testing. They were sort of conflicted about Lewis's electrical engineer son Frederick who is often considered to be the co-founder of the Silicon Valley (with the other co-founder being the infamous 1960s IQ-race realist William Shockley). Frederick got some positive credit because he recruited several brilliant Jews into the Stanford faculty, but he did not sufficiently disavow the evil views of his IQ test-promoting father.

The committee concluded that: "Frederick Terman was not a leader of the American Eugenics Movement His biographer asserts that Lewis had “a particularly strong influence on his only son, not simply as a father but as an intellectual immersed in the study and encouragement of gifted children, and as a career academic.” The record is unclear on whether that influence extended to eugenics, with various commentators claiming it did, and others largely silent on the issue . On the one hand, he hired several Jewish professors (Carl Djerassi, Joshua Lederberg, Arthur Kornberg and Henry Kaplan); on the other, he also recruited his friend and staunch eugenicist William Shockley to Stanford. Frederick does not appear to have disavowed his father’s eugenics doctrines and activities, neither does he appear to have publically advanced them."

I have a relative with a low IQ not caused by Down Syndrome. She can mimic normalcy well. If you met her on a bus for a short ride, you might even have a pleasant conversation about the weather, or some music she is listening to. But it is all mimicry and learning standard social exchanges.

She has an animal shrewdness, much like a dog. She reads faces well and is sensitive to changes in eye contact and body posture, again, much like a dog. She often senses that she has done something wrong and modifies her social affect.

I have been around her when she has met normal strangers and then talked about her with them (very carefully). Many are not even aware that she has a major intellectual deficit. Many just think she is perhaps a little "off" or "quirky".

I can spot others like her now. Particularly on cop shows. They are the ones who make moronic mistakes and are caught within minutes or hours of their crimes. The ones who knock someone over the head, take their money and cell phone, then walk right around the corner to their favorite MacDonalds to buy some fast food and call their friends.

That’s how the LAPD caught the home invader who slashed my wife’s friend’s throat back around 2007: he took her phone, and called his gang buddies to boast. The cops came down on them like a ton of bricks and they rolled over and said he always eats breakfast at his local Jack in the Box. So he was in cuffs the next morning.

The school board in Palo Alto voted recently to rename Jordan Middle School (named after David Starr Jordan, Stanford University’s first president, who was a eugenicist and wrote that "to say that one race is superior to another is merely to confirm the common observation of every intelligent citizen.") and Terman Middle School ("Terman's fate is slightly more complicated given its naming history, trustees said Tuesday. Terman was first named after Lewis Terman, a prominent Stanford University psychologist, when the school opened in 1958. When the school later closed and then reopened in 2001, it was named to honor both Lewis and his son, Frederick, an accomplished Stanford electrical engineer. There is no clear evidence, committee members said Tuesday, that Frederick played an active role in or supported the eugenics movement, as Lewis did."

There is a 60 page pdf of the committee's study of the issue, they all agreed that Lewis Terman was a really bad guy because he believed in IQ testing. They were sort of conflicted about Lewis's electrical engineer son Frederick who is often considered to be the co-founder of the Silicon Valley (with the other co-founder being the infamous 1960s IQ-race realist William Shockley). Frederick got some positive credit because he recruited several brilliant Jews into the Stanford faculty, but he did not sufficiently disavow the evil views of his IQ test-promoting father.

The committee concluded that: "Frederick Terman was not a leader of the American Eugenics Movement His biographer asserts that Lewis had “a particularly strong influence on his only son, not simply as a father but as an intellectual immersed in the study and encouragement of gifted children, and as a career academic.” The record is unclear on whether that influence extended to eugenics, with various commentators claiming it did, and others largely silent on the issue . On the one hand, he hired several Jewish professors (Carl Djerassi, Joshua Lederberg, Arthur Kornberg and Henry Kaplan); on the other, he also recruited his friend and staunch eugenicist William Shockley to Stanford. Frederick does not appear to have disavowed his father’s eugenics doctrines and activities, neither does he appear to have publically advanced them."

Truth is out of style. Hence, the renaming. Because if you speak it, you make it true for you. And eugenics is false. Even if the universe raises its middle finger to you when you claim it is false. Because the universe is racist. And so is the multiverse. And so is the infinityverse. And so is the infinityverse raised to the infinity power.

I do not mean to quibble, but here it goes:
There can be truth in a diagnostic, say the IQ differences among human groups. Noticing, judging is human and full of common sense.
But eugenics is not the diagnostic, it is the resulting policy, guiding group action, and it has been disastrous, whether as Planned Parenthood, as communist class warfare or Nazi supremacism.
Given differences in human groups, we should probably be thinking of a humane, practical answer to the recurring question: "How then shall we live?"

The most terrifying aspect of the graph is the number of persons with IQs of 70 and below. The U.S. Supreme Court (yes, I know that it’s not an expert in such matters, but it’s not a bad reference point) has said that an IQ of 70 is mental retardation. There is no genuine economic contribution of which these people are capable in a modern economy and look at the numbers that are coming to Europe.

Evidently the left thinks the West has extra trillions to spend on these legitimately labeled morons (51-70 IQ). And to think that, according to the polls, Macron will be the next French president. He's on record for stating that "mass immigration" is unavoidable. Good luck with that, France.

Maybe Murray would have less reviled IF he had written more like Ann Coulter or some black guy.

What people find grating is the intelligent judicious tone + controversial findings.

Coulter said some wild stuff, but respectable people see her as 'nut', so they can sort of tolerate her and her ilk. Her views are not taken SERIOUSLY by intellectuals, so it doesn't matter. Also, they knew she is a molotov cocktail thrower looking for trouble.

In contrast, Murray was taken seriously as thinker, even by Libs. He was published in New Republic earlier. He was seen as balanced and sensible 'conservative'. He was part of the inner circle of respectable conservatives and even considered a token insider among moderate liberals.

Elites think that judiciousness and thoughtfulness MUST arrive at their conclusion of faux-dogma-on-equality. Of course, they don't really believe in it themselves, but they strongly believe in the importance of make-believing in it. It's like the Church. Maybe not everyone in the Church really believes in God, and they, wink-wink, know it. Maybe God doesn't really exist, wink wink. But they all have to say publicly that God exists. Otherwise, the Church has lost its spiritual justification. Equality became the official religion of postwar intellectualism in both capitalist west and communist east. You don't have to believe in it privately. In small circles, you can even discuss race differences. But publicly, NO. Publicly, Equality is the god that must be upheld.

If Murray hadn't written the book but got together with a small circle of academics and discussed his findings, they might have listened and even agreed on some points. But they can't abide it once it's made public. Publicly, Equality is the official faith.

It's like, the noblemen may find the current king to be an idiot. But in a monarchy, they must bow down to the king and respect him in the public realm. They might make some snide comments behind closed doors about the king, but it must never be made public. And if someone is exposed of having uttered disrespectful remark, even those who'd been there egging him on must denounce and deny him like Peter denied Jesus.

Among the elites, judiciousness and thoughtfulness are supposed to converge on the same conclusion: Equality. Because Murray was allowed and because he rubbed shoulders with respectable people, his book led to massive panic. Respectable people don't hang with Coulter. But they worked with Murray and even supported him and defended him. So, when the book came out, it didn't just mean Murray was wrong. It meant that THEY were tainted by association with him. So, they had to DENY him especially hard like Peter did. "I knew nothing about that side of Murray. He seemed like a nice guy, thoughtful person. I didn't know he's a closet Nazi. I swear I didn't. I swear it. Really!! Get him, not me. I renounce him, denounce him, and will never invite him to anything ever again."

Now, imagine if Murray had written the book in Ebonics and relished the role of Bad Boy. Things might have been different. Bell Curvaceous might have been kinda cool.

Ebonicize Murray's "Trump's America", and it has some populist cachet. Murray should have written for the unwashed dummies, not the uptight smarties.

As recently as 1960, da creed wuz our national consensus. Running dat year fo' da Democratic nomination, candidates like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson an' Hubert Humphrey genuinely embraced da creed, differing from Republicans only in how its elements should be realized.

this day, da creed has lost its authority an' its substance. What happened? Many o' da dynamics o' da reversal can be found in developments across da whole o' American society: in da emergence o' uh new upper class an' uh new lower class, an' in da plight o' da working class caught in between.

It’s not so much the difference in mean and modal values that is striking, as much as how skewed the cyan Western scores are towards the high values, and equally, how skewed the red non-Western scores are in the opposite direction.

The school board in Palo Alto voted recently to rename Jordan Middle School (named after David Starr Jordan, Stanford University’s first president, who was a eugenicist and wrote that "to say that one race is superior to another is merely to confirm the common observation of every intelligent citizen.") and Terman Middle School ("Terman's fate is slightly more complicated given its naming history, trustees said Tuesday. Terman was first named after Lewis Terman, a prominent Stanford University psychologist, when the school opened in 1958. When the school later closed and then reopened in 2001, it was named to honor both Lewis and his son, Frederick, an accomplished Stanford electrical engineer. There is no clear evidence, committee members said Tuesday, that Frederick played an active role in or supported the eugenics movement, as Lewis did."

There is a 60 page pdf of the committee's study of the issue, they all agreed that Lewis Terman was a really bad guy because he believed in IQ testing. They were sort of conflicted about Lewis's electrical engineer son Frederick who is often considered to be the co-founder of the Silicon Valley (with the other co-founder being the infamous 1960s IQ-race realist William Shockley). Frederick got some positive credit because he recruited several brilliant Jews into the Stanford faculty, but he did not sufficiently disavow the evil views of his IQ test-promoting father.

The committee concluded that: "Frederick Terman was not a leader of the American Eugenics Movement His biographer asserts that Lewis had “a particularly strong influence on his only son, not simply as a father but as an intellectual immersed in the study and encouragement of gifted children, and as a career academic.” The record is unclear on whether that influence extended to eugenics, with various commentators claiming it did, and others largely silent on the issue . On the one hand, he hired several Jewish professors (Carl Djerassi, Joshua Lederberg, Arthur Kornberg and Henry Kaplan); on the other, he also recruited his friend and staunch eugenicist William Shockley to Stanford. Frederick does not appear to have disavowed his father’s eugenics doctrines and activities, neither does he appear to have publically advanced them."

Sorry to be a kind of Spaßverderber, but I don't find this kind ridicule to be amusing, appropriate, or helpful -- what's going on is nothing less than a vicious crime against future generations of (white) Europeans -- they will have to deal with the horrible legacy of this: the societal pathology of a large and problematic muslim and black underclass -- not to mention a disturbed sex ratio.

https://twitter.com/OnlineMagazin/status/839488264251797504

what’s going on is nothing less than a vicious crime against future generations of (white) Europeans — they will have to deal with the horrible legacy of this

Future generations will say their ancestors really hated them and wanted them to disappear. But they will still be there, and they will have learned something from it.

Don’t know why Murray is even mentioned as this sort of stuff predates the old coot.

Western armed forces have been administering all sorts of entrance exams in order to properly place their recruits or determine if they are even intellectually fit to serve for some time – even going back to pre-WWII times.

Of course such tests will uncover intellectual disparities among ethnic groups, no surprise there to anyone.

What is this "nativist rhetoric" mentioned in this article and elsewhere? And how come no one writes of "invasionist rhetoric" with regard to the positions of those trying to flood the U.S.A. with Syrians and such?

The conventinal media don't even try to hide their disdain for America and Americans anymore.

Something is happening, it is just that we were to be prevented from knowing what exactly.

Murray’s greatest sin, is that for those who know, or rather those who can see, the cat will never be put back into the bag. How could he have done such a thing? This messy science, and testing nonsense is disruptive to the Progressive world view. Just over the hill was heaven, bigot.

The reality of IQ may well be demonology, what is measurable, and grounded in reality however is the pervading stain of White Supremacy, for some reason Asian Supremacy appears to skilled in concealment.

White Supremacy is of course Global silly bigot, not localised to America. So naturally where ever Europeans are to be found, no matter their number, wicked is soon afoot.

It is not so much that Europeans are suppressing non-white IQ, it is the fact European IQ exists at all, this is the true cause of worry. Logically; if it did not exist to be compared to others, the correct course of action is to necessitate that it does not.

If anyone reading this believes for one second the western world has evolved beyond throwing poor victims into volcanoes, you are sadly mistaken. White Supremacy, White Privilege, what can it be other than the Demiurge in a Gnostic belief system? Solution, Gnosis Kardia, or what Sociologists call Radical Empathy to fix this unjust reality.

"Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.
Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.
The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation.
The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it.
And, superiority excites envy.
Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities."
Joseph Sobran, April 1997

The obvious, just, fair, equalitastic solution is to kill all the Blue People to the right of the top of the Red People’s hump.

That way the Red People become the geniuses!

All those Blue People are just holding them back from THEIR TURN at looking smart.

Perhaps I sound like a kid who just ate a pound of Pixy Stix, straws and all…but I have in fact heard people in Princeton, NJ, Madison, Wisconsin, Berkeley and San Francisco and Napa/Sonoma, California, Twin Cities, Minnesota, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Manhattan and Brooklyn, Gentrificyork, Portland and Seattle, Batshitlandia, and Greater Pugetopolis say exactly or nearly exactly that.

They didn’t seem to be kidding. And many work toward or have achieved their goal of going to Peru or Chile or Argentina or etc., and becoming part of the New Sustainable Organic Handmade Artisan Breastfeeding Yogamommy Numale Maker Gentry down there.

Where nobody even measures nasty things like IQ and everyone is equal.

Also American trust funds, I mean dollars, I mean Good Hearted Efforts On Behalf Of Others, go so much farther down there.

Which isn’t unequal because We’re On The Side Of The Angels.

Also moving to Melaninland is better than being killed in the service of redefining regress as progress. But you’re just as gone, but then can live like gentry and lecture everyone in your old native country. (AKA Fred Reed Syndrome.) Plus have dual citizenship.

Sorry to be a kind of Spaßverderber, but I don't find this kind ridicule to be amusing, appropriate, or helpful -- what's going on is nothing less than a vicious crime against future generations of (white) Europeans -- they will have to deal with the horrible legacy of this: the societal pathology of a large and problematic muslim and black underclass -- not to mention a disturbed sex ratio.

https://twitter.com/OnlineMagazin/status/839488264251797504

Unfortunately the SW here did not handle the twitter link in my above comment — it contained a link to this story:

Endspurt im Asylbewerberheim — a new home for asylum-seekers and refugees is ready in Döbeln, which is just west of Dresden — 59 men and one child will move in — there is a foto of nice German women making sure the place is clean.

I have a relative with a low IQ not caused by Down Syndrome. She can mimic normalcy well. If you met her on a bus for a short ride, you might even have a pleasant conversation about the weather, or some music she is listening to. But it is all mimicry and learning standard social exchanges.

She has an animal shrewdness, much like a dog. She reads faces well and is sensitive to changes in eye contact and body posture, again, much like a dog. She often senses that she has done something wrong and modifies her social affect.

I have been around her when she has met normal strangers and then talked about her with them (very carefully). Many are not even aware that she has a major intellectual deficit. Many just think she is perhaps a little "off" or "quirky".

I can spot others like her now. Particularly on cop shows. They are the ones who make moronic mistakes and are caught within minutes or hours of their crimes. The ones who knock someone over the head, take their money and cell phone, then walk right around the corner to their favorite MacDonalds to buy some fast food and call their friends.

I think I have honed my ability to spot people like this too. My job involves dealing with a lot of people on the left side of the bell curve. I later have access to psychological testing for many of them. I challenge myself to try to guess, and usually am pretty close. Teachers can do it too, but more intuitively.

There is something to be said for The Bell Curve’s approach. When I need to advocate for them, I can explain the reality of their life situation and their limitations, and almost invariably garner sympathy and understanding for them. It is like my own mother insisting that my brother’s B and C grades were okay, when my A- grades were not.

I remember when I was considering the military later in life, the recruiter I spoke with felt that I would be a poor fit due to having graduate degrees. Education does indeed disqualify me to serve, I suppose.

Maybe Murray would have less reviled IF he had written more like Ann Coulter or some black guy.

What people find grating is the intelligent judicious tone + controversial findings.

Coulter said some wild stuff, but respectable people see her as 'nut', so they can sort of tolerate her and her ilk. Her views are not taken SERIOUSLY by intellectuals, so it doesn't matter. Also, they knew she is a molotov cocktail thrower looking for trouble.

In contrast, Murray was taken seriously as thinker, even by Libs. He was published in New Republic earlier. He was seen as balanced and sensible 'conservative'. He was part of the inner circle of respectable conservatives and even considered a token insider among moderate liberals.

Elites think that judiciousness and thoughtfulness MUST arrive at their conclusion of faux-dogma-on-equality. Of course, they don't really believe in it themselves, but they strongly believe in the importance of make-believing in it. It's like the Church. Maybe not everyone in the Church really believes in God, and they, wink-wink, know it. Maybe God doesn't really exist, wink wink. But they all have to say publicly that God exists. Otherwise, the Church has lost its spiritual justification. Equality became the official religion of postwar intellectualism in both capitalist west and communist east. You don't have to believe in it privately. In small circles, you can even discuss race differences. But publicly, NO. Publicly, Equality is the god that must be upheld.

If Murray hadn't written the book but got together with a small circle of academics and discussed his findings, they might have listened and even agreed on some points. But they can't abide it once it's made public. Publicly, Equality is the official faith.

It's like, the noblemen may find the current king to be an idiot. But in a monarchy, they must bow down to the king and respect him in the public realm. They might make some snide comments behind closed doors about the king, but it must never be made public. And if someone is exposed of having uttered disrespectful remark, even those who'd been there egging him on must denounce and deny him like Peter denied Jesus.

Among the elites, judiciousness and thoughtfulness are supposed to converge on the same conclusion: Equality. Because Murray was allowed and because he rubbed shoulders with respectable people, his book led to massive panic. Respectable people don't hang with Coulter. But they worked with Murray and even supported him and defended him. So, when the book came out, it didn't just mean Murray was wrong. It meant that THEY were tainted by association with him. So, they had to DENY him especially hard like Peter did. "I knew nothing about that side of Murray. He seemed like a nice guy, thoughtful person. I didn't know he's a closet Nazi. I swear I didn't. I swear it. Really!! Get him, not me. I renounce him, denounce him, and will never invite him to anything ever again."

Now, imagine if Murray had written the book in Ebonics and relished the role of Bad Boy. Things might have been different. Bell Curvaceous might have been kinda cool.

Ebonicize Murray's "Trump's America", and it has some populist cachet. Murray should have written for the unwashed dummies, not the uptight smarties.

As recently as 1960, da creed wuz our national consensus. Running dat year fo' da Democratic nomination, candidates like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson an' Hubert Humphrey genuinely embraced da creed, differing from Republicans only in how its elements should be realized.

this day, da creed has lost its authority an' its substance. What happened? Many o' da dynamics o' da reversal can be found in developments across da whole o' American society: in da emergence o' uh new upper class an' uh new lower class, an' in da plight o' da working class caught in between.

I have a relative with a low IQ not caused by Down Syndrome. She can mimic normalcy well. If you met her on a bus for a short ride, you might even have a pleasant conversation about the weather, or some music she is listening to. But it is all mimicry and learning standard social exchanges.

She has an animal shrewdness, much like a dog. She reads faces well and is sensitive to changes in eye contact and body posture, again, much like a dog. She often senses that she has done something wrong and modifies her social affect.

I have been around her when she has met normal strangers and then talked about her with them (very carefully). Many are not even aware that she has a major intellectual deficit. Many just think she is perhaps a little "off" or "quirky".

I can spot others like her now. Particularly on cop shows. They are the ones who make moronic mistakes and are caught within minutes or hours of their crimes. The ones who knock someone over the head, take their money and cell phone, then walk right around the corner to their favorite MacDonalds to buy some fast food and call their friends.

I eat Taco Bell because my 20-something son likes it and the only time I see him is when I buy him lunch. It still tastes the same as it did when I was 20-something, which is rare, as most foods have become adulterated and bastardized versions of their former greatness.

My IQ is around the typical +2SD for an iSteve addict. Other than providing a decent career and briefly dazzling a few girls, that IQ has been more of a pain in the ass than a blessing. Bring on the Taco Bell!

I am also interested in the Taco Bell curve. A person's IQ can be approximated as a decreasing step function from average IQ for each time they have eaten at a Taco Bell in the past year.

I eat Taco Bell because my 20-something son likes it and the only time I see him is when I buy him lunch. It still tastes the same as it did when I was 20-something, which is rare, as most foods have become adulterated and bastardized versions of their former greatness.

My IQ is around the typical +2SD for an iSteve addict. Other than providing a decent career and briefly dazzling a few girls, that IQ has been more of a pain in the ass than a blessing. Bring on the Taco Bell!

Truth is out of style. Hence, the renaming. Because if you speak it, you make it true for you. And eugenics is false. Even if the universe raises its middle finger to you when you claim it is false. Because the universe is racist. And so is the multiverse. And so is the infinityverse. And so is the infinityverse raised to the infinity power.

So there!

I do not mean to quibble, but here it goes:
There can be truth in a diagnostic, say the IQ differences among human groups. Noticing, judging is human and full of common sense.
But eugenics is not the diagnostic, it is the resulting policy, guiding group action, and it has been disastrous, whether as Planned Parenthood, as communist class warfare or Nazi supremacism.
Given differences in human groups, we should probably be thinking of a humane, practical answer to the recurring question: “How then shall we live?”

I have a relative with a low IQ not caused by Down Syndrome. She can mimic normalcy well. If you met her on a bus for a short ride, you might even have a pleasant conversation about the weather, or some music she is listening to. But it is all mimicry and learning standard social exchanges.

She has an animal shrewdness, much like a dog. She reads faces well and is sensitive to changes in eye contact and body posture, again, much like a dog. She often senses that she has done something wrong and modifies her social affect.

I have been around her when she has met normal strangers and then talked about her with them (very carefully). Many are not even aware that she has a major intellectual deficit. Many just think she is perhaps a little "off" or "quirky".

I can spot others like her now. Particularly on cop shows. They are the ones who make moronic mistakes and are caught within minutes or hours of their crimes. The ones who knock someone over the head, take their money and cell phone, then walk right around the corner to their favorite MacDonalds to buy some fast food and call their friends.

Bravo! Understanding human nature is a subtler art that just noticing capacity for abstract thought. I learned from your comment, thank you.

I have a relative with a low IQ not caused by Down Syndrome. She can mimic normalcy well. If you met her on a bus for a short ride, you might even have a pleasant conversation about the weather, or some music she is listening to. But it is all mimicry and learning standard social exchanges.

She has an animal shrewdness, much like a dog. She reads faces well and is sensitive to changes in eye contact and body posture, again, much like a dog. She often senses that she has done something wrong and modifies her social affect.

I have been around her when she has met normal strangers and then talked about her with them (very carefully). Many are not even aware that she has a major intellectual deficit. Many just think she is perhaps a little "off" or "quirky".

I can spot others like her now. Particularly on cop shows. They are the ones who make moronic mistakes and are caught within minutes or hours of their crimes. The ones who knock someone over the head, take their money and cell phone, then walk right around the corner to their favorite MacDonalds to buy some fast food and call their friends.

Out of curiousity, is it a specific named learning disability such as ADHD?

ADD is not a learning disability. And learning disability is not the same thing as low IQ - it means extreme difficulty with areas of learning (such as spelling, or reading, or math). Sometimes one comes across people with average or high IQ but who are scrambled when it comes to being able to read, for example (IQ 115, but 5th grade reading level on an academic achievement test such as the WRAT). Sometimes these people are written off as dumb in school, when they are not.

I think I have honed my ability to spot people like this too. My job involves dealing with a lot of people on the left side of the bell curve. I later have access to psychological testing for many of them. I challenge myself to try to guess, and usually am pretty close. Teachers can do it too, but more intuitively.

There is something to be said for The Bell Curve's approach. When I need to advocate for them, I can explain the reality of their life situation and their limitations, and almost invariably garner sympathy and understanding for them. It is like my own mother insisting that my brother's B and C grades were okay, when my A- grades were not.

I remember when I was considering the military later in life, the recruiter I spoke with felt that I would be a poor fit due to having graduate degrees. Education does indeed disqualify me to serve, I suppose.

Way to pat yourself on the back. There are numerous men in America’s voluntary military who have advanced degrees, or lack such degrees but have no corresponding lack of IQ or ability. You may have been a poor fit for any number of reasons; your attitude of superiority prime among them.

There is a reason there are so many Muslims in Denmark, and Europe as a whole. Women want them there. They welcomed them, from Mutti Merkel down to the virtue signaling old hags who host foreigners while denigrating their own people.

There is nothing so ruthless and destroying as the HATE HATE HATE (White) women have for their men made equal; and so inevitably they want to destroy a society that does not provide continous tingles. Consider the young hottie who says Tamerlane Tsarnaev took her virginity:

Nadine Ascencao, 24, said Tamerlan made her wear an Islamic hijab and pray to Allah and slapped her when she wore Western clothes.

But she was so blindly in love with the handsome boxer who had taken her virginity, she did her utmost to make him happy.

Nadine said: “I went to his mosque a couple of times and even looked into converting to make him happy. I thought, ‘This is crazy’ — but I still did it for him.

“Tamerlan had taken my virginity and said he loved me because I was pure and hadn’t been with any other guys. I was in love and scared he’d leave me if I didn’t do what he said. Looking back I had a lucky escape.”

Tamerlane Tsarnaev most likely had an 85 IQ, at best. Which is probably the sweet spot for women when resources are plenty; and they don’t need (and therefore want) beta male provisioning. Pencil in about 40% of the White female population and that is the explanation for Mass Muslim immigration. It sucks for White men, but women get the sexy domination and being slapped around which they want. Lesson: give women a floor above minimal subsistence and they will import low IQ goat herders to slap them around every time.

Emil has been incredibly prolific since late January. Lots of really good posts at his blog. Here’s a link since I did not see one at the RPubs page: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/
Here’s a recent post that is especially relevant to this thread:
How to do a meta-analysis of Black-White IQ gap

It shows the behavior over time of the measured gap. I was a bit surprised by the results for two reasons:
1. I had thought the gap was larger in the early 20th century.
2. Although possibly an artifact, the dip and rise since 1960 seem odd to me, as does the presence of so many outliers.

I remember when I was considering the military later in life, the recruiter I spoke with felt that I would be a poor fit due to having graduate degrees. Education does indeed disqualify me to serve, I suppose.

Here is the reason that the University of Toronto only has one black (Igbo) medical student:

Robinson stresses that students must meet the same rigorous educational standards as all other applicants when it comes to marks, course requirements and scores on the MCAT medical school admission test.

In the US, 5% of medical students are black. The only reason the percentage is that high is because blacks are allowed into medical school with lower GPAs and MCAT scores. However, it should be noted that the same number of low-scoring Asian-Americans are allowed into US medical schools as blacks, but they are easy to miss since there so many more high-scoring Asian-Americans bringing up the average..

Maybe Murray would have less reviled IF he had written more like Ann Coulter or some black guy.

What people find grating is the intelligent judicious tone + controversial findings.

Coulter said some wild stuff, but respectable people see her as 'nut', so they can sort of tolerate her and her ilk. Her views are not taken SERIOUSLY by intellectuals, so it doesn't matter. Also, they knew she is a molotov cocktail thrower looking for trouble.

In contrast, Murray was taken seriously as thinker, even by Libs. He was published in New Republic earlier. He was seen as balanced and sensible 'conservative'. He was part of the inner circle of respectable conservatives and even considered a token insider among moderate liberals.

Elites think that judiciousness and thoughtfulness MUST arrive at their conclusion of faux-dogma-on-equality. Of course, they don't really believe in it themselves, but they strongly believe in the importance of make-believing in it. It's like the Church. Maybe not everyone in the Church really believes in God, and they, wink-wink, know it. Maybe God doesn't really exist, wink wink. But they all have to say publicly that God exists. Otherwise, the Church has lost its spiritual justification. Equality became the official religion of postwar intellectualism in both capitalist west and communist east. You don't have to believe in it privately. In small circles, you can even discuss race differences. But publicly, NO. Publicly, Equality is the god that must be upheld.

If Murray hadn't written the book but got together with a small circle of academics and discussed his findings, they might have listened and even agreed on some points. But they can't abide it once it's made public. Publicly, Equality is the official faith.

It's like, the noblemen may find the current king to be an idiot. But in a monarchy, they must bow down to the king and respect him in the public realm. They might make some snide comments behind closed doors about the king, but it must never be made public. And if someone is exposed of having uttered disrespectful remark, even those who'd been there egging him on must denounce and deny him like Peter denied Jesus.

Among the elites, judiciousness and thoughtfulness are supposed to converge on the same conclusion: Equality. Because Murray was allowed and because he rubbed shoulders with respectable people, his book led to massive panic. Respectable people don't hang with Coulter. But they worked with Murray and even supported him and defended him. So, when the book came out, it didn't just mean Murray was wrong. It meant that THEY were tainted by association with him. So, they had to DENY him especially hard like Peter did. "I knew nothing about that side of Murray. He seemed like a nice guy, thoughtful person. I didn't know he's a closet Nazi. I swear I didn't. I swear it. Really!! Get him, not me. I renounce him, denounce him, and will never invite him to anything ever again."

Now, imagine if Murray had written the book in Ebonics and relished the role of Bad Boy. Things might have been different. Bell Curvaceous might have been kinda cool.

Ebonicize Murray's "Trump's America", and it has some populist cachet. Murray should have written for the unwashed dummies, not the uptight smarties.

As recently as 1960, da creed wuz our national consensus. Running dat year fo' da Democratic nomination, candidates like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson an' Hubert Humphrey genuinely embraced da creed, differing from Republicans only in how its elements should be realized.

this day, da creed has lost its authority an' its substance. What happened? Many o' da dynamics o' da reversal can be found in developments across da whole o' American society: in da emergence o' uh new upper class an' uh new lower class, an' in da plight o' da working class caught in between.

Ann Coulter may be wild, but unlike Murray she has carefully stayed away from the subject of racial differences in IQ. She blames black dysfunction on the lack of fathers in the home, which is certainly an important factor, but perhaps more of a symptom than a cause.

What is this “nativist rhetoric” mentioned in this article and elsewhere? And how come no one writes of “invasionist rhetoric” with regard to the positions of those trying to flood the U.S.A. with Syrians and such?

The conventinal media don’t even try to hide their disdain for America and Americans anymore.

I have a relative with a low IQ not caused by Down Syndrome. She can mimic normalcy well. If you met her on a bus for a short ride, you might even have a pleasant conversation about the weather, or some music she is listening to. But it is all mimicry and learning standard social exchanges.

She has an animal shrewdness, much like a dog. She reads faces well and is sensitive to changes in eye contact and body posture, again, much like a dog. She often senses that she has done something wrong and modifies her social affect.

I have been around her when she has met normal strangers and then talked about her with them (very carefully). Many are not even aware that she has a major intellectual deficit. Many just think she is perhaps a little "off" or "quirky".

I can spot others like her now. Particularly on cop shows. They are the ones who make moronic mistakes and are caught within minutes or hours of their crimes. The ones who knock someone over the head, take their money and cell phone, then walk right around the corner to their favorite MacDonalds to buy some fast food and call their friends.

If you haven’t read it already, you should check out a very interesting essay by Lawrence Auster, “MY VIEWS ON RACE AND INTELLIGENCE. ”

Your post about your relative reminded me of this section of Auster’s essay:

I realized that the reason whites do not automatically become aware of the large differences in average intellectual ability between whites and blacks is that whites often deal with blacks on a superficial level where only the ordinary levels of intelligence are brought into play.

In the fall of 1993 I had a kind of epiphany in which all these thoughts crystallized into a new paradigm concerning racial differences. It happened like this. I recalled an uncle of mine, one of my father’s brothers, who died about 10 years ago. He was a tall, handsome man, a natty dresser, a golfer, socially popular, a tough guy with an authoritative air, a bit irascible at times but not unkind. It never occurred to me in my youth there was anything wrong with him. It wasn’t until I grew older that I realized his entire conversation was limited to saying things like “Not too bad,” or “How about that,” or “You don’t say.” That’s an exaggeration, but not by much. My uncle, a year older than my father, worked with him in their business, in which they were partners, but I gradually realized my uncle did little except answer the phone and take in receipts. It was my father who actually ran the business and who had basically supported my uncle through his entire life, all the while keeping up the amiable front that my uncle was a partner in fact as well as in name. My mother told me that before she married my father, he told her that he would always have to take care of his brother. In fact, my uncle was of very limited intelligence, perhaps even borderline retarded, but it wasn’t something you automatically noticed because of the way he carried himself, his almost kingly manner and leonine appearance.

As I thought about my uncle in this light, I began to see through the “optical illusion” of racial equality. I realized how in ordinary interactions and behavior blacks seem on the whole like ourselves, indeed, often more vital than ourselves, with warm and vivid personalities, so we assume that any intellectual differences must be insignificant. It is only when we go beyond superficial contact and get to know them better, or when we observe them in a position requiring intelligence, that we see that, much more often than whites or Asians, they are unable to deal with more rigorous tasks. In undemanding, routine affairs they are, more or less, intellectually equal to whites. In more demanding settings they are not.

It was this insight that, by revealing and removing the “optical illusion,” brought all my ideas into a new pattern and gave me the conviction that there is a substantial, real difference in intelligence between blacks and whites, and that the difference is not just quantitative, but qualitative.

Out of curiousity, is it a specific named learning disability such as ADHD?

ADD is not a learning disability. And learning disability is not the same thing as low IQ – it means extreme difficulty with areas of learning (such as spelling, or reading, or math). Sometimes one comes across people with average or high IQ but who are scrambled when it comes to being able to read, for example (IQ 115, but 5th grade reading level on an academic achievement test such as the WRAT). Sometimes these people are written off as dumb in school, when they are not.

It's not so much the difference in mean and modal values that is striking, as much as how skewed the cyan Western scores are towards the high values, and equally, how skewed the red non-Western scores are in the opposite direction.

Thin left tail for the cyans, thin right tail for the reds.

I noticed that, too.

The authors kindly provide summary data in standard units. The first three moments are

Speaking of blaming Charles Murray, I happened to take a quick look at the critique of The Bell Curve written by James Heckman, which Steve mentioned in one of his tweets.

It’s almost amusing to read it 20 years after it was written. Heckman talks a big talk about how TBC didn’t rule out important environmental influences on IQ because of X, Y, and Z, and how if they had pursued those angles, they might very well have come to see the force of environmental explanations.

Well, here it is, over 20 years later, and what has Nobel Prize winner Heckman himself produced along lines of X, Y, and Z, which would lead him to environmental conclusions?

Why not a single thing, of course. At best, he’s produced some crackpot theories about how one’s teacher in kindergarten has a permanent effect on one’s conscientiousness in school. Improving IQ over the long run? Forget about it — even Heckman won’t flog that dead horse.

What a miserable creep Heckman must be to refuse to acknowledge his own mistake, and the mischief he, personally, has done to Murray. Someday, even his Nobel Prize won’t save his reputation.

If you haven't read it already, you should check out a very interesting essay by Lawrence Auster, "MY VIEWS ON RACE AND INTELLIGENCE. "

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001132.html

Your post about your relative reminded me of this section of Auster's essay:

I realized that the reason whites do not automatically become aware of the large differences in average intellectual ability between whites and blacks is that whites often deal with blacks on a superficial level where only the ordinary levels of intelligence are brought into play.

In the fall of 1993 I had a kind of epiphany in which all these thoughts crystallized into a new paradigm concerning racial differences. It happened like this. I recalled an uncle of mine, one of my father’s brothers, who died about 10 years ago. He was a tall, handsome man, a natty dresser, a golfer, socially popular, a tough guy with an authoritative air, a bit irascible at times but not unkind. It never occurred to me in my youth there was anything wrong with him. It wasn’t until I grew older that I realized his entire conversation was limited to saying things like “Not too bad,” or “How about that,” or “You don’t say.” That’s an exaggeration, but not by much. My uncle, a year older than my father, worked with him in their business, in which they were partners, but I gradually realized my uncle did little except answer the phone and take in receipts. It was my father who actually ran the business and who had basically supported my uncle through his entire life, all the while keeping up the amiable front that my uncle was a partner in fact as well as in name. My mother told me that before she married my father, he told her that he would always have to take care of his brother. In fact, my uncle was of very limited intelligence, perhaps even borderline retarded, but it wasn’t something you automatically noticed because of the way he carried himself, his almost kingly manner and leonine appearance.

As I thought about my uncle in this light, I began to see through the “optical illusion” of racial equality. I realized how in ordinary interactions and behavior blacks seem on the whole like ourselves, indeed, often more vital than ourselves, with warm and vivid personalities, so we assume that any intellectual differences must be insignificant. It is only when we go beyond superficial contact and get to know them better, or when we observe them in a position requiring intelligence, that we see that, much more often than whites or Asians, they are unable to deal with more rigorous tasks. In undemanding, routine affairs they are, more or less, intellectually equal to whites. In more demanding settings they are not.

It was this insight that, by revealing and removing the “optical illusion,” brought all my ideas into a new pattern and gave me the conviction that there is a substantial, real difference in intelligence between blacks and whites, and that the difference is not just quantitative, but qualitative.

What a loss for Lawrence Auster to die relatively young. I remember reading the piece you quoted.

My own experience was not with blacks but with American Indians. Amazing how normal they seemed until one worked with them for a while.

That's one of the reasons modern elites remain clueless about IQ differences. Near total insulation from ordinary people other than the help prevents them from fully grasping how wide IQ differences can turn out in real life.

What a loss for Lawrence Auster to die relatively young. I remember reading the piece you quoted.

My own experience was not with blacks but with American Indians. Amazing how normal they seemed until one worked with them for a while.

Dan Kurt

That’s one of the reasons modern elites remain clueless about IQ differences. Near total insulation from ordinary people other than the help prevents them from fully grasping how wide IQ differences can turn out in real life.

That’s one of the reasons modern elites remain clueless about IQ differences. Near total insulation from ordinary people other than the help prevents them from fully grasping how wide IQ differences can turn out in real life.

They can't help it.

A big difference between modern elites and elites in earlier times is that modern elites go through multiple stages of formal education. IQ is selected for, at every stage, and as long as educational credentials—such as having a professional degree or a degree from a highly selective college—remain the prime determinant for admission into the elites, the problem of insulation will remain.

Mandatory universal military service, or some form of national service, as in socialist societies, helps alleviate the problem somewhat.

Mao wasn't totally off the wall when he called for reeducation camps. He saw the same problem and wanted to fix it, albeit in a colossally malign and inept manner.

Maybe Murray would have less reviled IF he had written more like Ann Coulter or some black guy.

What people find grating is the intelligent judicious tone + controversial findings.

Coulter said some wild stuff, but respectable people see her as 'nut', so they can sort of tolerate her and her ilk. Her views are not taken SERIOUSLY by intellectuals, so it doesn't matter. Also, they knew she is a molotov cocktail thrower looking for trouble.

In contrast, Murray was taken seriously as thinker, even by Libs. He was published in New Republic earlier. He was seen as balanced and sensible 'conservative'. He was part of the inner circle of respectable conservatives and even considered a token insider among moderate liberals.

Elites think that judiciousness and thoughtfulness MUST arrive at their conclusion of faux-dogma-on-equality. Of course, they don't really believe in it themselves, but they strongly believe in the importance of make-believing in it. It's like the Church. Maybe not everyone in the Church really believes in God, and they, wink-wink, know it. Maybe God doesn't really exist, wink wink. But they all have to say publicly that God exists. Otherwise, the Church has lost its spiritual justification. Equality became the official religion of postwar intellectualism in both capitalist west and communist east. You don't have to believe in it privately. In small circles, you can even discuss race differences. But publicly, NO. Publicly, Equality is the god that must be upheld.

If Murray hadn't written the book but got together with a small circle of academics and discussed his findings, they might have listened and even agreed on some points. But they can't abide it once it's made public. Publicly, Equality is the official faith.

It's like, the noblemen may find the current king to be an idiot. But in a monarchy, they must bow down to the king and respect him in the public realm. They might make some snide comments behind closed doors about the king, but it must never be made public. And if someone is exposed of having uttered disrespectful remark, even those who'd been there egging him on must denounce and deny him like Peter denied Jesus.

Among the elites, judiciousness and thoughtfulness are supposed to converge on the same conclusion: Equality. Because Murray was allowed and because he rubbed shoulders with respectable people, his book led to massive panic. Respectable people don't hang with Coulter. But they worked with Murray and even supported him and defended him. So, when the book came out, it didn't just mean Murray was wrong. It meant that THEY were tainted by association with him. So, they had to DENY him especially hard like Peter did. "I knew nothing about that side of Murray. He seemed like a nice guy, thoughtful person. I didn't know he's a closet Nazi. I swear I didn't. I swear it. Really!! Get him, not me. I renounce him, denounce him, and will never invite him to anything ever again."

Now, imagine if Murray had written the book in Ebonics and relished the role of Bad Boy. Things might have been different. Bell Curvaceous might have been kinda cool.

Ebonicize Murray's "Trump's America", and it has some populist cachet. Murray should have written for the unwashed dummies, not the uptight smarties.

As recently as 1960, da creed wuz our national consensus. Running dat year fo' da Democratic nomination, candidates like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson an' Hubert Humphrey genuinely embraced da creed, differing from Republicans only in how its elements should be realized.

this day, da creed has lost its authority an' its substance. What happened? Many o' da dynamics o' da reversal can be found in developments across da whole o' American society: in da emergence o' uh new upper class an' uh new lower class, an' in da plight o' da working class caught in between.

Ebonicize Murray’s “Trump’s America”, and it has some populist cachet. Murray should have written for the unwashed dummies, not the uptight smarties.

Hahaha. It sounds every black activist college kid I’ve ever heard — it has all the 50 cent words that these kids think makes them sound smart, but it also has the ghetto talk that they can’t shake and that betrays their roots.

The school board in Palo Alto voted recently to rename Jordan Middle School (named after David Starr Jordan, Stanford University’s first president, who was a eugenicist and wrote that "to say that one race is superior to another is merely to confirm the common observation of every intelligent citizen.") and Terman Middle School ("Terman's fate is slightly more complicated given its naming history, trustees said Tuesday. Terman was first named after Lewis Terman, a prominent Stanford University psychologist, when the school opened in 1958. When the school later closed and then reopened in 2001, it was named to honor both Lewis and his son, Frederick, an accomplished Stanford electrical engineer. There is no clear evidence, committee members said Tuesday, that Frederick played an active role in or supported the eugenics movement, as Lewis did."

There is a 60 page pdf of the committee's study of the issue, they all agreed that Lewis Terman was a really bad guy because he believed in IQ testing. They were sort of conflicted about Lewis's electrical engineer son Frederick who is often considered to be the co-founder of the Silicon Valley (with the other co-founder being the infamous 1960s IQ-race realist William Shockley). Frederick got some positive credit because he recruited several brilliant Jews into the Stanford faculty, but he did not sufficiently disavow the evil views of his IQ test-promoting father.

The committee concluded that: "Frederick Terman was not a leader of the American Eugenics Movement His biographer asserts that Lewis had “a particularly strong influence on his only son, not simply as a father but as an intellectual immersed in the study and encouragement of gifted children, and as a career academic.” The record is unclear on whether that influence extended to eugenics, with various commentators claiming it did, and others largely silent on the issue . On the one hand, he hired several Jewish professors (Carl Djerassi, Joshua Lederberg, Arthur Kornberg and Henry Kaplan); on the other, he also recruited his friend and staunch eugenicist William Shockley to Stanford. Frederick does not appear to have disavowed his father’s eugenics doctrines and activities, neither does he appear to have publically advanced them."

“If you see it, then you can imagine that you can be it,” says Nnorom, a Scarborough family physician and public health specialist who also teaches black health in the faculty of medicine.

Just one of the many stupefyingly ignorant statements in this article bemoaning the dearth of black medical students at University of Toronto (only 1 out of 259 this year).
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/03/09/u-of-t-in-bid-bid-to-attract-more-black-med-students.html

“In this day and age in a city like Toronto, we want a class that reflects our population.”

That would be 8.4% black. A big stretch from 0.39%, but not to worry.
“It’s not a question of ability, but rather a question of access and exposure...”

Right.

Would it be piling on to note that Nnorom spelled backward is Moronn?

gda, While the megaphone says there are no differences, what the hell is Black Health?

Something is happening, it is just that we were to be prevented from knowing what exactly.

Murray's greatest sin, is that for those who know, or rather those who can see, the cat will never be put back into the bag. How could he have done such a thing? This messy science, and testing nonsense is disruptive to the Progressive world view. Just over the hill was heaven, bigot.

The reality of IQ may well be demonology, what is measurable, and grounded in reality however is the pervading stain of White Supremacy, for some reason Asian Supremacy appears to skilled in concealment.

White Supremacy is of course Global silly bigot, not localised to America. So naturally where ever Europeans are to be found, no matter their number, wicked is soon afoot.

It is not so much that Europeans are suppressing non-white IQ, it is the fact European IQ exists at all, this is the true cause of worry. Logically; if it did not exist to be compared to others, the correct course of action is to necessitate that it does not.

If anyone reading this believes for one second the western world has evolved beyond throwing poor victims into volcanoes, you are sadly mistaken. White Supremacy, White Privilege, what can it be other than the Demiurge in a Gnostic belief system? Solution, Gnosis Kardia, or what Sociologists call Radical Empathy to fix this unjust reality.

This is all just a terrible inconvenience.

“Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.
Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.
The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation.
The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it.
And, superiority excites envy.
Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.”
Joseph Sobran, April 1997

That's one of the reasons modern elites remain clueless about IQ differences. Near total insulation from ordinary people other than the help prevents them from fully grasping how wide IQ differences can turn out in real life.

That’s one of the reasons modern elites remain clueless about IQ differences. Near total insulation from ordinary people other than the help prevents them from fully grasping how wide IQ differences can turn out in real life.

They can’t help it.

A big difference between modern elites and elites in earlier times is that modern elites go through multiple stages of formal education. IQ is selected for, at every stage, and as long as educational credentials—such as having a professional degree or a degree from a highly selective college—remain the prime determinant for admission into the elites, the problem of insulation will remain.

Mandatory universal military service, or some form of national service, as in socialist societies, helps alleviate the problem somewhat.

Mao wasn’t totally off the wall when he called for reeducation camps. He saw the same problem and wanted to fix it, albeit in a colossally malign and inept manner.

“If you see it, then you can imagine that you can be it,” says Nnorom, a Scarborough family physician and public health specialist who also teaches black health in the faculty of medicine.

Just one of the many stupefyingly ignorant statements in this article bemoaning the dearth of black medical students at University of Toronto (only 1 out of 259 this year).
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/03/09/u-of-t-in-bid-bid-to-attract-more-black-med-students.html

“In this day and age in a city like Toronto, we want a class that reflects our population.”

That would be 8.4% black. A big stretch from 0.39%, but not to worry.
“It’s not a question of ability, but rather a question of access and exposure...”

Right.

Would it be piling on to note that Nnorom spelled backward is Moronn?

Here is the reason that the University of Toronto only has one black (Igbo) medical student:

Robinson stresses that students must meet the same rigorous educational standards as all other applicants when it comes to marks, course requirements and scores on the MCAT medical school admission test.

In the US, 5% of medical students are black. The only reason the percentage is that high is because blacks are allowed into medical school with lower GPAs and MCAT scores. However, it should be noted that the same number of low-scoring Asian-Americans are allowed into US medical schools as blacks, but they are easy to miss since there so many more high-scoring Asian-Americans bringing up the average..

There is a reason there are so many Muslims in Denmark, and Europe as a whole. Women want them there. They welcomed them, from Mutti Merkel down to the virtue signaling old hags who host foreigners while denigrating their own people.

There is nothing so ruthless and destroying as the HATE HATE HATE (White) women have for their men made equal; and so inevitably they want to destroy a society that does not provide continous tingles. Consider the young hottie who says Tamerlane Tsarnaev took her virginity:

Nadine Ascencao, 24, said Tamerlan made her wear an Islamic hijab and pray to Allah and slapped her when she wore Western clothes.

But she was so blindly in love with the handsome boxer who had taken her virginity, she did her utmost to make him happy.

Nadine said: “I went to his mosque a couple of times and even looked into converting to make him happy. I thought, ‘This is crazy’ — but I still did it for him.

“Tamerlan had taken my virginity and said he loved me because I was pure and hadn’t been with any other guys. I was in love and scared he’d leave me if I didn’t do what he said. Looking back I had a lucky escape.”

Tamerlane Tsarnaev most likely had an 85 IQ, at best. Which is probably the sweet spot for women when resources are plenty; and they don't need (and therefore want) beta male provisioning. Pencil in about 40% of the White female population and that is the explanation for Mass Muslim immigration. It sucks for White men, but women get the sexy domination and being slapped around which they want. Lesson: give women a floor above minimal subsistence and they will import low IQ goat herders to slap them around every time.

Pretty Brazilian girls like Nadine are a dime a dozen in the area where Speedbump lived.

The most terrifying aspect of the graph is the number of persons with IQs of 70 and below. The U.S. Supreme Court (yes, I know that it's not an expert in such matters, but it's not a bad reference point) has said that an IQ of 70 is mental retardation. There is no genuine economic contribution of which these people are capable in a modern economy and look at the numbers that are coming to Europe.

Evidently the left thinks the West has extra trillions to spend on these legitimately labeled morons (51-70 IQ). And to think that, according to the polls, Macron will be the next French president. He’s on record for stating that “mass immigration” is unavoidable. Good luck with that, France.

I eat Taco Bell because my 20-something son likes it and the only time I see him is when I buy him lunch. It still tastes the same as it did when I was 20-something, which is rare, as most foods have become adulterated and bastardized versions of their former greatness.

My IQ is around the typical +2SD for an iSteve addict. Other than providing a decent career and briefly dazzling a few girls, that IQ has been more of a pain in the ass than a blessing. Bring on the Taco Bell!